The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1887-12-28
HENRY eEoReEoN FREE TRADE
He Likes Cleyeland's Message and Thinks
BIaine Is Doing the Cause Good.

did not draw a foil house, however, for
there were many rows OF empty seats in
the lower part, says the New York World.
Professor David B. Scott was the chairman,
and declared that free trade without free
land was mockery.
Mr.. George said, in opening, that he
could re-echo the Itterances OF Mr.. Blaine,
and could say Thank God for Grover
Cleyeland's message. 1t is not the utter
ance of prophet, but could you expect
prophet to get a Democratic nomination.
It is not O free trade message, but 1t is the
message OF President of the United States
who is against protection. He is not
man afraid of his horses, but when he gets
started bis horses may carry him great
deal further than he now expects. 1t has
already done a great deal by the stirring
up of discussion. He objects to discussion
OF theories of free trade and protection,
and yet he does that very thing, and there
is othing that will so conduce to the edu-
cation of the American people as such q
discussion. agree with Professor Scott in
saying that there is nothing that can
permanently help the people of a country
so long as they do not have free land. So
long as one set of men hold the land and
another set of men have only their labor,
there must be wage system which gives
a bare subsistence For protective tariff
and a revenue tariff l cara moth
ing, but this road to free trade
leads to freedom generally. Free trade
carried out will bring US where we want to
gc-the abolition of all taxes on industry
and putting II on the rent OF the land. We
believe that poverty is not natural thing
at all, but is produced by false con-
ditions. The remedy for low wages is not
charity, nor benehcence, nor protection,
but justice to oil men. We do not propose
that the State shall conduct production,
nor interfere with the individual rights OF
any man. l care nothing for the protec
tive system, but care great deal FOR the
protective idea tnat labor is poor, weak
thing which needs coddling. 1t is said
that what these Republican clubs call our
work people need line drawn, and all
goods carried across that line 10 be taxed
more or less. How does this idea line with
the idea of the brotherhood of man? If 1t
be right, it is right for all men, in all
countries. What a pity it was thst the
Creator did not put a natural protective
barrier around each country. If, as Mr..
Macarthur said in his prayer, politics and
morals were one, then there should be no
crime made in politics which is not o2e in
morals.
'iMr. Blaine [Cheers and hisses1. l hope
you won't hiss Mr.. Blaine. he is doing a
good work by getting up discussion of
this subject. He is on the other side, and
he is doing good. He says that his to wn
makes cotton goods, and when they are
sent seven hundred miles into Canada they
are protected, end when they are sent
seventeen thousand miles around the Horn
to California they are going to domestic
market and don't need any protec ion.
What do l care whether l buy from a man
Of this or that nationality? Does any
storekeeper on Broadway sell me anything
CHI aper because / am al American, or
charge Mr.. Yiller there more because he is
an Epglishman? There is no logic or con-
sistency in the whole protection scheme
from one end to the other. 1t is merely to
advance selfish interests at the general cost.
We need tariff, it is said, against
foreign and cheap labor because
our labor is high, and yet Germany
insists upon a protective tariff against
cur high labor. We ought to have the
highest tariff agslnst the country where
the labor is the cheapest. China, for IN
stance; but no, England is the country the
protectionists fear, and yet in England Ia
Dor is paid best OF any country next to the
United States. They want to protect labor
by taxing products, and yet they do not
tax labor direct or direct their tariff at it.
Mr.. Blaine says it is our duty to sleep I'M
der blankets Of American make. Well,
what is be sleeping under tonight? He is
eating paUper bread, drinking pauper-
made wine, and unless he is different from
with his trunk stuffed with foreign goods.
Laughter.l
"Who are we protecting ourselves
against2 They tell us that manufacturers
are waiting to deluge Us with goods, but
they won't do il unless We return the del
uge in some shape. We are protected
against Ourselves. We want certain goods,
20 into the stores and ask for them, and
find that tariff cuts us off from our de-
sires. We are entitled to the pursuit of
happiness, and yet II walk across Niagara
bridge and see a..coat want; l cannot take
it home until have paid fine. A nation
is an artificial unit-the family is the true
unit-aDd true protection would guard one
family from another. God indicated a
natural free trade. One part of the wor d
produces some things better than other
places, and the natural procedure is for
those who produce best to send to those
who want and cannot well. produce. We
are in q constant state OF war by protec-
ton. When Sumpter was fired on we sent
q lot of men-of-war to Charleston har-
Dor to suspend trade. We pro-
tected the Charlestonians, and it is
the same whether we have q GUS
tom-house in the port or man-of-war out
side. The Irishmen fully protected Captain
Boycott; they placed an embargo on his
home market; they carried to the indi-
NAAhoA WAos w Wahs W w viva VIZ La-
ton. We want to boycott ourselves with
tariff, and all under the plea of taking
care of our labor. Is there any assurance
that the higher profit which the tariff gives
the manufacturer comes to the workmen
in any way? Out of seventeen million
workmen in the United States not one
sixth are in the protected industries. so if
these industries are even more protected,
where are the other workmen to come in?
The better wages paid in the protected In
dustries are due to labsr unions shutting
of competition.
Protection takes care OF labor, does itP
Go to the cotton mills, the coal regions
the iron sections and see what protected
labor gets. No. What we want, to give
labor its full earnings, is net protection, 1t
is freedom. What we want to get rid OF is
this idea that poverty can be improved by
benevolence; that the condition of the
workingman can be improved by a pater-
nal protection. Free trade is bound to
lead to this free trade in all the elements
of nature, and this is free land very soon.
What we want is discussion. What we
want is light. This discussion will bring
out as much good for the people
as we could have won had we
been successful at the last cleo
ton. We said then that we did not care
so much how men voted as how they
thought, and the talk over the message
and its meaning will make men think.
Protection is robbery, but 1t Is nothing